Day Care for All(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Day Care for All
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/opinion/sunday/child-care-daycare-democrats-progressive.html
31 comments
Great, Google gets 5 more years from its technical women while the kids are raised by government mouth breathers. No thanks
Google pays enough technical women enough they are probably already getting that. This is more like the 27 year old associate property manager gets to stay on the path to promotion, or the $15/h hairdresser not having to have a near zero income for the 3 years her two kids are young.
Totally relevant different nyt article: https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-...
I would love this.
Even parents who want to have their children home with them for the majority of the time would benefit if they could drop their child off at daycare so they can step out to a dr apt without the baby in tow.
Or a parent who needs a day, to sleep, to have the opportunity to drop their child off for a few hours.
It’d also be a built in easy way to socialize your kid or to meet other kids/parents who work or live nearby.
For other parents who are struggling financially or got pregnant too early, accessible day care could be what enables them to go to a job interview or to work an extra shift in order to put their family in a better financial situation.
Even parents who want to have their children home with them for the majority of the time would benefit if they could drop their child off at daycare so they can step out to a dr apt without the baby in tow.
Or a parent who needs a day, to sleep, to have the opportunity to drop their child off for a few hours.
It’d also be a built in easy way to socialize your kid or to meet other kids/parents who work or live nearby.
For other parents who are struggling financially or got pregnant too early, accessible day care could be what enables them to go to a job interview or to work an extra shift in order to put their family in a better financial situation.
An incentive for everyone to have children doesn’t make sense. An incentive for hard working, intelligent people to have children makes more sense. Make it a tax deduction, so those making six digits are encouraged to have more than two children, while those barely able to survive aren’t perversely incentivized to spread their unsuccessful genes.
This type of comment always surprises me, it is very short sighted.
so the criteria for success is 'making six digits' which you correlate to hard work and intelligence.
That ignores the following cases:
- Intelligent, hard working but not high income ( Academics)
- circumstances, today you make 'six digits' but due to thousands of variables ( Market, industry, health) you lose the ability to generate that income after having kids
- being hard working, intelligent does not make you any better parent, in fact there is a case for the opposite where you cannot dedicated time to the raising of children.
- Anecdotally I personally know many people who are making six digits, who would probably make terrible parents
so the criteria for success is 'making six digits' which you correlate to hard work and intelligence.
That ignores the following cases:
- Intelligent, hard working but not high income ( Academics)
- circumstances, today you make 'six digits' but due to thousands of variables ( Market, industry, health) you lose the ability to generate that income after having kids
- being hard working, intelligent does not make you any better parent, in fact there is a case for the opposite where you cannot dedicated time to the raising of children.
- Anecdotally I personally know many people who are making six digits, who would probably make terrible parents
This plan is being primarily supported by those making over $100k, as those are the primary tax payers. People who make over $100k are more likely to have children who make over $100k.
Simulate a scenario where people living on welfare are incentivized to have 2 extra children. Those 2 extra children are unlikely to increase the wealth of the population, resulting in a spiral of poverty within a few generations.
I know many people who make more than six digits who are excellent parents and would be happy to have more children. I also know many people who make more than six digits who have happily removed themselves from the breeding stock and live a gluttonous child free existence. People who make more than six digits are unlikely to have children unless they want them
Simulate a scenario where people living on welfare are incentivized to have 2 extra children. Those 2 extra children are unlikely to increase the wealth of the population, resulting in a spiral of poverty within a few generations.
I know many people who make more than six digits who are excellent parents and would be happy to have more children. I also know many people who make more than six digits who have happily removed themselves from the breeding stock and live a gluttonous child free existence. People who make more than six digits are unlikely to have children unless they want them
> incentivized to spread their unsuccessful genes
Wow. This is an incredibly ridiculous and damaging statement.
It's sad that the only way you measure hard work and intelligence is whether or not someone has a six-figure income.
Wow. This is an incredibly ridiculous and damaging statement.
It's sad that the only way you measure hard work and intelligence is whether or not someone has a six-figure income.
Is the goal of society to improve itself or to spiral into unsustainable state sponsored welfare? A six-figure income was arbitrary definition of an individual who is contributing above the means back to society. Redefine that number as you wish.
.. that makes sense? or does it?
Many comments seem to come from the idea that day care is just a place to dump kids. It is, in fact, quite important to a child's education if done properly. Therefore, it shouldn't be viewed as an expense or a benefit for the parents, but as an institution valuable for society as a whole.
> if done properly
I'd think that would probably be the main concern for critics.
I'd think that would probably be the main concern for critics.
Daycare just costs money, and not everyone needs daycare. So why not "money for all"?
Because having children is rather important to the continuation of society, and (while largely wonderful) a massive financial investment by the parents.
Maybe...
Given the impact on the world's ecosystems of the current population, it doesn't seem so far fetched that having _fewer_ children might be critical to the continuation of society.
Given the impact on the world's ecosystems of the current population, it doesn't seem so far fetched that having _fewer_ children might be critical to the continuation of society.
That is the theory behind guaranteed basic income.
I didn’t see how they proposed to pay for day care for all.
I mean there’s only two answers and after that really only one. Deficit and taxes. And then even more taxes for the current expenses and all the interest too.
And if we simply print the money to pay for it, then increased inflation to boot.
And if we simply print the money to pay for it, then increased inflation to boot.
> And if we simply print the money to pay for it, then increased inflation to boot.
This logically makes sense, but it doesn't really follow the evidence. We've been running a budget deficit for many years, growing larger and larger, yet interest rates are historically low.
This logically makes sense, but it doesn't really follow the evidence. We've been running a budget deficit for many years, growing larger and larger, yet interest rates are historically low.
Presumably if mothers can continue their career because of the availability of child care then that brings along additional tax revenues.
One way or another child care gets paid for now.
Loans in the name of the child, duh. Interest free until 4th grade, at which point they'll learn how to transfer the balance to their first credit card.
The progressive to-do list could add a whole slew of other things. How about free housing, electricity, internet, food, clothes, phones for all? But at what cost?
The thing I don't get about the socialist movement in America is where does it stop? Aren't we supposed to make our own living?
I think if you know someone who is in need, then help them. I can't take this idea that it's the government's job to take care of everyone.
The thing I don't get about the socialist movement in America is where does it stop? Aren't we supposed to make our own living?
I think if you know someone who is in need, then help them. I can't take this idea that it's the government's job to take care of everyone.
Community-based charity does not work in many, many circumstances as a social safety net, unfortunately.
Free everything for everybody.
Anyone I've seen who had the choice favors "staying home" and raising their children.